independent police review authority annual report 2007 - 2008 · ipra investigates all cases in...

CITY OF CHICAGO

RICHARD M. DALEYMAYOR

InDEpEnDEnT pOLICE REvIEw AuTHORITY

ILAnA b.R. ROsEnzwEIGCHIEF ADMInIsTRATOR

Independent Police Review Authority

Annual Report 2007 - 2008

Independent Police Review AuthorityAnnual Report 2007 - 2008

ILAnA b.R. ROsEnzwEIGChief Administrator

Independent police Review Authority Annual Report

Message from the Chief Administrator ......................................................................1

Overview of IpRA ...............................................................................................................6

Allegations of Misconduct – The Complaint Process ............................................. 6

Uses of Force – Shootings and Tasers ................................................................... 10

Extraordinary Occurrences ................................................................................... 12

Lawsuit Settlements .............................................................................................. 13

Criminal misconduct ............................................................................................... 13

Recommendations of Changes to CPD Policies and Operating Procedures ....... 14

Frequently Asked Questions About IPRA ............................................................. 14

IMpROvInG InvEsTIGATIOns ..........................................................................16

Timeliness and Caseload Management ................................................................ 16

Strengthening the Investigator Ranks .................................................................. 17

Shooting Investigations ......................................................................................... 19

Audio Recording of Interviews ............................................................................. 21

Establishing Protocols for Interactions with CPD and Other Government Agencies ......................................................... 21

bRInGInG IpRA’s MEssAGE TO CpD AnD THE pubLIC ...................................24

Community Outreach ............................................................................................ 24

Outreach to CPD ..................................................................................................... 26

2007 - 2008 - bY THE nubMERs .......................................................................28

Appendix A ...........................................................................................................................i

Chapter 2-57 Independent Police Review Authority – City of Chicago Ordinance ..................................................................................... i

Appendix b ......................................................................................................................... ix

CPD Use of Force ..................................................................................................... ix

Appendix C .......................................................................................................................xlvi

Abstract of Sustained Cases ................................................................................ xlvi

1

AnnuAL REpORT 2007-2008

1

MESSAGE FROM ThE ChIEF ADMInISTRATOR

I am pleased to present the first Annual Report of the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), for the year 2007-2008.

Last summer, in response to concerns about how allegations of police misconduct were being investigated by the Chicago Police Department (CPD), Mayor Richard M. Daley created IPRA by ordinance (the Ordinance). This ordinance was approved by the City Council in September 2007. IPRA, which replaced the former Office of Professional Standards for the Chicago Police Department, is responsible for investigating allegations against CPD members of excessive force, domestic violence, coercion through a threat of violence, and bias-based verbal abuse. IPRA also investigates discharges of firearms and Tasers, and extraordinary occurrences in CPD custody, even where there is no allegation of misconduct. Through fair, thorough, and timely investigations, and increased transparency, IPRA seeks to establish trust in IPRA and improve trust in the disciplinary process for the CPD.

The Ordinance created a strong structure for independent review of the conduct of CPD members. In particular, it:

Established IPRA as an independent city department, separate from CPD. •

Gave IPRA responsibility for intake of all allegations of misconduct made against CPD •members, whether from the public or from within CPD.

Clearly defined IPRA’s jurisdiction – the types of conduct and misconduct IPRA •investigates – and established a timeline for completing investigations.

Retained a role for the Superintendent of Police in discipline decisions, and created a •transparent process for resolving any disagreements between CPD and IPRA regarding the outcome of investigations.

Mandated cooperation with IPRA investigations by CPD members and all City •employees, and gave IPRA subpoena authority.

Authorized IPRA to make recommendations to CPD, the Police Board, and the City •Council Committee on Police and Fire regarding policy and operating procedures.

Authorized IPRA to address police personnel and community groups, and mandated •quarterly public reporting.

Provided for the appointment of a Chief Administrator with a set term, removable •only for cause.

2


The Ordinance and the changes it established went into effect on September 5, 2007, with the Chicago City Council’s approval of my appointment by Mayor Daley as Chief Administrator. Since that time, IPRA has had a busy year. IPRA received more than 9500 complaints and notifications regarding CPD members. On average, IPRA retained for investigation slightly more than 200 investigations per month (more than 2500 in its first year) that fell within its statutory jurisdiction. The remainder, containing allegations beyond IPRA’s statutory authority, were referred to CPD for investigation or other resolution.

This report highlights some of the accomplishments of the agency’s first year in operation. In addition, because this is IPRA’s first Annual Report, we devote a significant portion of the report to explaining our processes.

2007-2008 – Highlights

Addressing the backlog and caseload management. From September 2007 through August 2008, IPRA closed more than 2150 investigations. While doing this, IPRA increased its output by more than 30% to close 200 or more investigations each month, reversing the prior trend of a rapidly growing backlog of investigations.

IPRA was able to increase the number of investigations closed through a number of measures. First, IPRA streamlined portions of the investigative process to make it more efficient without compromising the thoroughness of investigations. Second, IPRA re-assigned support staff to perform some administrative functions previously performed by investigators, freeing up investigator time for more fundamental investigative work. Third, IPRA effectively used investigator overtime to close additional cases, as well as weekend overtime for support staff to free investigators’ time on weekends. Finally, as a short-term measure while permanent hiring continues, IPRA brought in outside experts to supplement its investigative staff.

Strengthening investigative personnel. In September 2007, 21 of IPRA’s Investigator and Supervising Investigator positions were vacant. This amounted to 30% vacancies. IPRA strengthened its investigative resources by hiring new investigators. Currently, there are only seven remaining vacancies in IPRA’s investigative staff. There are identified candidates for five of those vacancies and IPRA is hopeful they will start working with IPRA by the end of 2008. IPRA continues to pursue candidates for the remaining openings. The individuals hired have reflected the diversity of the City of Chicago.

Hiring new investigators, however, is only the start. Every new investigator requires months of training. IPRA further strengthened its investigator ranks by implementing standard training for new investigators, including both in-house and external instruction. In addition, IPRA created a template for annual recurrent training for all investigators.

Improving investigations of officer-involved shootings. IPRA adopted a more proactive role in the hours immediately following officer-involved shootings. IPRA now actively seeks written, signed statements from witnesses immediately after a shooting. IPRA evaluates the integrity of the crime scene and initial fact-gathering process. And IPRA interviews all involved officers to obtain formal statements before completing its investigations.

IPRA and CPD also discussed the need to assure the public that IPRA performs a thorough, independent investigation of all officer-involved shootings. IPRA determined that while an investigation is pending, it will not release any information that could undermine the integrity of its investigation or create the false impression that IPRA has pre-judged the incident and prematurely drawn conclusions about the propriety of the shooting. CPD, for its part, decided to refrain from its past practice of disseminating conclusions about whether a shooting complied with CPD policy in the hours immediately following the

MES

SAG

E FR

OM

THE

CHI

EF A

DMIN

ISTR

ATO

R

MES

SAG

E FR

OM

TH

E CH

IEF

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATO

R

3


3incident. Working together, IPRA and CPD also are developing a review panel that will evaluate every shooting for systemic, non-disciplinary issues that may need to be addressed, such as training, equipment, or policy failures. This panel will receive IPRA’s completed investigation, making its determinations when all evidence is available for consideration.

Audio recording of interviews. IPRA has begun a pilot program to audio record witness interviews. Because audio recordings provide the most accurate record of what was said in an interview, IPRA hopes to expand this practice to all its interviews

Improving IPRA’s physical and personnel infrastructure. In its first year of operation, IPRA has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of its technology infrastructure and vehicle fleet. As a result of this evaluation, IPRA immediately upgraded and replaced its computer network and network connections. With help from sister departments within the City of Chicago, IPRA has developed a blueprint for replacing the remainder of its outdated technology and vehicles with appropriate equipment. In addition, IPRA created the personnel infrastructure necessary to operate as an independent department of the City of Chicago, including running its own payroll, finance, procurement, technology, personnel, hiring, and numerous other support functions that CPD had previously provided to the former OPS.

Increased transparency through outreach to the public, elected officials, and all ranks of CPD. IPRA proactively has met with elected officials, community organizations, community residents, and faith-based institutions to ensure that the Chicago community understands our investigative process and role. IPRA has also increased its transparency by making its quarterly reports and Ordinance available to the public via the IPRA website. In addition, IPRA has sought to explain its new organization, role, and processes to CPD personnel. To this end, IPRA has addressed roll calls in the districts, every recruit class that has graduated from the Chicago Police Academy since IPRA’s creation, and classes of promoted detectives, lieutenants, and sergeants. IPRA has also met with the four unions representing CPD sworn members.

Abstracts of completed investigations. In a continuing effort to increase transparency while protecting the rights of all involved in an investigation, IPRA created abstracts of sustained cases that briefly describe the allegations, the proven misconduct, and IPRA’s recommended discipline. (See Appendix C)

This Annual Report is a further important step in increasing the information available to the public and the transparency of IPRA’s process. Through annual and quarterly reports, IPRA will continue to communicate to the citizens of Chicago the progress that our newly created agency has made and the work still needing to be done.

2008-2009 – The Year Ahead

IPRA was created with a strong foundation and has made much progress this past year. In the next year, we will continue to focus our energies on the integrity of our investigations. IPRA will build upon the specialized training for investigators implemented this past year. In addition, IPRA will continue to strive to improve the quality of shooting investigations. Finally, IPRA will work to increase the productivity and efficiency of investigators, while ensuring thorough and timely investigations. We will also continue to explore new ways to be more transparent in our reporting.

IPRA is a national model for effective oversight of law enforcement. But IPRA will only stay at the forefront through a constant evaluation and reevaluation of what we do, how we do it, and what impact we are having. We at IPRA are dedicated to the goal of continual improvement and are committed to working with the residents of Chicago, the

4


Superintendent and members of CPD, and the elected leaders of Chicago to achieve this goal. Therefore, we welcome your constructive feedback and look forward to working together to improve trust in IPRA and its process.

As a final note, I would be remiss if I did not specifically thank all those who have helped us in the past year. Sister City Departments have offered assistance in many ways, too numerous to list, including the Department of Human Resources, Department of Innovation and Technology, Department of Law, Office of Budget and Management, Department of Finance, Department of Procurement, and Fleet Management. In addition, we have had the full support and assistance of the Office of the Mayor and Aldermanic Offices. Finally, and notably, we have received the utmost cooperation from the Chicago Police Department in implementing this transition – a testament to the best CPD has to offer.

ILAnA B.R. ROSEnzWEIG September 2008

MES

SAG

E FR

OM

THE

CHI

EF A

DMIN

ISTR

ATO

R

MES

SAG

E FR

OM

TH

E CH

IEF

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATO

R

5


5

6


OvERvIEw OF IPRA

IPRA is an independent department of the City of Chicago, created in September 2007 by City of Chicago ordinance, and staffed with civilian investigators. (Appendix A is a copy of the Ordinance establishing IPRA.) IPRA has six areas of responsibility:

IPRA investigates allegations made against CPD members of excessive force, domestic violence, coercion, and bias-based verbal abuse.

IPRA investigates all incidents in which a CPD member discharges his or her firearm, stun gun, or Taser in a manner that potentially could strike an individual, even where there is no allegation of misconduct.

IPRA investigates all cases in which a person is injured or dies in police custody or where an extraordinary or unusual occurrence occurs in lockup facilities, even where there is no allegation of misconduct.

IPRA intakes all allegations of misconduct made against CPD members, whether originating with the public or with other members of CPD. After gathering preliminary information, IPRA determines whether each matter is within IPRA’s jurisdiction or must instead be forwarded to CPD for resolution.

IPRA reviews all cases settled by the City’s Department of Law in which a complaint register was filed against a CPD member and if, in the opinion of the Chief Administrator, further investigation is warranted, conducts such investigation.

Finally, IPRA makes recommendations to the Superintendent of Police, the Police Board, and the Chairman of the City Council Committee on Police and Fire concerning revisions to CPD policy and operating procedures.

The IPRA office is staffed 7 days a week from 7 am to 11 pm. In addition, IPRA personnel are on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to urgent situations requiring immediate investigation, including officer-involved shootings.

Allegations of Misconduct – The Complaint Process

While each allegation of misconduct raises unique issues, IPRA employs a thorough and standardized process for its handling of all such allegations.

OvERvIEw OF IpRA:

Allegations of Misconduct – The Complaint Process

Uses of Force – Shootings and Tasers

Extraordinary Occurrences

Lawsuit Settlements

Criminal Misconduct

Recommendations of Changes to CPD Policies and Operating Procedures

Frequently Asked Questions About IPRA

OVE

RVIE

W O

F IP

RA

ALL

EGAT

ION

S O

F M

ISCO

ND

UCT

- TH

E CO

MPL

AIN

T PR

OCE

SS

7


7

step One: Intake

When a member of the public perceives that a CPD member has committed misconduct, he or she may register the complaint by phone, in person, by mail, or over the internet. IPRA Intake Aides and Investigators register complaints by phone or in person from 7:00 am to 10:30 pm, 7 days a week. IPRA has a TTY device to ensure the availability of its services for the hearing impaired. IPRA also has access to interpreter services for complainants who do not speak English. After hours, messages can be left on the IPRA voicemail.

The IPRA offices are located at 10 West 35th Street, in the Illinois Institute of Technology Tower. They are adjacent to the Dan Ryan and accessible by public transportation, including buses on State Street and 35th Street, and the Green and Red Lines. Building security is provided by the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), rather than CPD, maintaining a neutral environment for complainants. For those visiting in person or coming for interviews, to avoid any actual or perceived dissuasion, IPRA has separate waiting rooms for members of the public and for CPD members arriving for interviews.

There is no required complaint form to register a complaint by mail. Any letter setting forth the alleged misconduct and providing contact information for the complainant will suffice.

Complaints can also be registered on the IPRA website. This is done by going to www.IPRAChicago.org and clicking on the link for “File a Complaint.” Links to this page are also included on the City of Chicago, CPD, CLEARPath, and Police Board websites.

Finally, a complaint can be registered with any CPD supervisor at any district station. Under CPD policy, supervisors are required to register the complaint, telephone IPRA with the information, and then submit a written memorandum to IPRA with all available information.

When a CPD member witnesses misconduct by another CPD member, that member has an obligation to report the misconduct. A CPD member can register an allegation of misconduct with IPRA through the CPD chain of command, and also through any of the ways mentioned above.

Whether the complaint is received from the public or from CPD, it follows the same process. Upon receipt, each complaint is assigned a Log number, which is a unique identifying number that is used throughout the investigative process to identify the allegation and its related investigation. IPRA retains those complaints alleging excessive force, domestic violence, verbal abuse with a bias element, or coercion through a threat or violence. When a complaint alleges solely other types of misconduct, including false arrest, theft, a false report, improper search, or failure to provide service, it is forwarded to CPD for resolution. When a complaint alleges multiple categories of allegations, if any one allegation is within IPRA’s jurisdiction, IPRA retains the entire complaint.

IPRA sends a letter to all members of the public who register complaints within 1-2 business days. The letter acknowledges the complaint, identifies the Log number, and indicates whether IPRA or CPD is investigating the matter. If the complaint has been retained by IPRA for investigation, and an investigator has been assigned, the letter will also contain the name of the assigned investigator.

step Two: Gathering the Evidence

There are three basic parts to the investigative process: interviewing witnesses and obtaining an affidavit, gathering physical and documentary evidence, and interviewing the

8


accused CPD members. With limited exceptions, there is no set order to the investigation.1 Investigators move through the process as they develop information about the alleged misconduct. As new information identifies new sources of evidence, investigators follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Interviews and Affidavit IPRA seeks detailed interviews from the complainant, alleged victim, and anyone else who witnessed the incident. To satisfy the legal requirement for an affidavit, IPRA requests that anyone making a complaint to IPRA or giving a statement sign a sworn affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the statement. With limited exceptions, unless IPRA has this affidavit, IPRA must close the investigation. To determine whether an exception to the affidavit requirement will apply, IPRA performs a pre-affidavit investigation for every allegation of misconduct, performing all tasks that are possible without the affidavit. This pre-affidavit investigation includes all investigative steps except interviewing accused sworn CPD members. Approximately 40% of IPRA investigations are closed after the pre-affidavit investigation because the affidavit requirement cannot be satisfied.

IPRA seeks to identify as many witnesses as possible, both members of the public and CPD members. IPRA asks the complainant or victim for names of witnesses, conducts canvasses of the area where the incident occurred, reviews CPD paperwork for any people identified therein, reviews OEMC2 records for any 911 calls, and reviews video and audio recordings.

Occasionally, witnesses will be identified who cannot be located or refuse to cooperate. IPRA documents its attempts to locate witnesses – and typically uses a three-pronged approach of a letter, phone calls, and a visit to the witness’s last known address. If a witness refuses to cooperate, IPRA can subpoena the witness to its office for a statement.

One particular area of difficulty exists when IPRA investigators attempt to interview complainants and witnesses who are also involved in civil litigation against the City.3 At times the attorneys who represent the complainants refuse to allow them to cooperate with IPRA’s investigators. In some instances, those attorneys also represent witnesses, effectively shutting off IPRA’s access to information. IPRA has attempted, over the past year, to improve its relationship with attorneys and obtain their cooperation in allowing interviews from complainants and witnesses. This is a time consuming process and causes investigations to take longer, but it is IPRA’s goal to obtain cooperation wherever possible.

Physical and Documentary Evidence From the moment an IPRA investigation commences, investigators evaluate the physical evidence that may be available and how to obtain it, with a particular focus on time-sensitive evidence. IPRA’s Rapid Response and Major Incident Response Teams are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to any immediate needs to gather time-sensitive information. Audio and video recordings from both government and private sources are normally erased, as a matter of course, after passage of time that can range from 24 hours to 30 days. Physical evidence, such as a baton or clothing, needs to be immediately retrieved and inventoried for any forensic testing before its evidentiary value is tainted.

As the investigation continues, IPRA continues to identify and gather relevant physical and documentary evidence, including medical records, autopsy reports, photographs, CPD

1 Under Illinois state law and CPD officer union contracts, IPRA must obtain a sworn affidavit regarding allegations before interviewing an accused officer. In addition, as a practical matter, any time-sensitive evidence that could be lost or destroyed with the passage of time – such as audio or video recordings on security cameras or 911 call recordings – must be promptly secured.

2 Office of Emergency Management and Communications.

3 These problems are on-going and pre-date the creation of IPRA.

OVE

RVIE

W O

F IP

RA

ALL

EGAT

ION

S O

F M

ISCO

ND

UCT

- TH

E CO

MPL

AIN

T PR

OCE

SS

9


9reports (including arrest, use of force reports4, hospitalization, and assignment sheets), radio transmissions, PCAD5 transmissions, PDT6 transmissions, and other CPD documentation. As appropriate, IPRA requests that the Illinois State Police perform forensic testing of physical evidence, such as fingerprint or DnA analysis.

Interview of Accused CPD MembersIPRA notifies the accused CPD members of the allegations made against them and schedules an interview or, in some cases, seeks a written report about the incident. Interviews are conducted in the IPRA offices. The CPD member is obligated to be truthful with IPRA and can face additional disciplinary action if not fully truthful. After the interview, the investigator evaluates what, if any, further investigation is needed.

Step Three: Conclusion of InvestigationAfter all relevant and available evidence has been gathered, IPRA completes a final report summarizing the evidence and recommending the outcome of the investigation and discipline, if appropriate. This recommendation is based on whether the proven conduct violated CPD Rules and Regulations. IPRA must therefore establish not only what occurred, but through research into CPD rules, policies, training, orders, and directives, determine whether the proven conduct was in fact misconduct.

In investigations of allegations of excessive force, which comprise the majority of IPRA’s investigations, IPRA applies CPD’s use of force policy. Appendix B is a copy of CPD General Order 02-08, which governs the use of force, as well as a copy of the Use of Force Model used by CPD.

For each allegation in an investigation, IPRA’s final report makes one of five findings based on its assessment of the facts and CPD policy:

Sustained: The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action.

not Sustained: There is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation.

Unfounded: The allegation is false or not factual.

Exonerated: The incident occurred, but the actions of the accused were lawful and proper.

no Affidavit: no one who witnessed the alleged misconduct provided a sworn statement and no exception to the affidavit requirement was applicable.

To reach these findings, IPRA must weigh the evidence to determine what has been proven. Where there is conflicting evidence, such as conflicting statements, and IPRA therefore has to choose between two versions of the facts, IPRA looks for evidence to corroborate one version or the other. This may include independent witnesses, physical evidence, forensic results, expert opinions, contemporaneous recordings or reports, or any other potential evidence. When IPRA is not able to determine which version of events has occurred,

4 CPD members document their uses of force on a Tactical Response Report (TRR) form.

5 The Police Computer Aided Dispatch (PCAD) system contains records of all information sent digitally by OEMC to the computer terminal in the police officers’ cars.

6 Portable Data Terminal (PDT) messages are transmitted digitally between police officers’ cars.

10


the finding will be “not sustained.” When IPRA is able to determine what occurred, if the proven facts are consistent with the complainant’s version of events and violated policy, then the finding will be “sustained.” If the proven facts are contrary to what the complainant alleged and did not violate policy, then the finding will be “unfounded.” If the proven facts are consistent with the complainant’s version, but simply did not violate policy, then the finding will be “exonerated.”

For any sustained case, IPRA may recommend discipline including violation noted or a written reprimand, suspensions of 1-365 days, or termination of employment.

The entire investigation, including the recommended outcome, is forwarded to CPD for review and implementation. At this time, a letter is also sent to the complainant letting him or her know that IPRA’s investigation is complete and has been forwarded to CPD.

Step Four: Post Investigation ReviewAfter IPRA completes its investigation, CPD reviews the investigation and any recommended discipline. Pursuant to the Ordinance, if the Superintendent disagrees with the discipline recommended by IPRA, he must do so in writing. If the Superintendent and the Chief Administrator cannot reach agreement on the outcome of an investigation, a three-member sub-committee of the Police Board resolves any disagreement and decides the outcome.

If after the internal review, CPD agrees that misconduct has been proven and discipline is warranted, the CPD member is notified. CPD members then have grievance and appeal rights to challenge the outcome. These grievances and appeals may be heard by the Police Board or private arbitrators. They may modify the outcome and in most instances their modifications are binding on IPRA and CPD. After those rights are exhausted and a final determination has been reached, IPRA sends another letter to the complainant setting forth the final outcome.

If there is agreement that no misconduct was proven, the case is closed. The accused CPD member and the complainant receive notifications of the outcome of the investigation.

Uses of Force – Shootings and Tasers

CPD members use force on a daily basis as part of their job responsibilities. As a society, under federal, state, and local laws, we give our law enforcement officers the right to use force under certain circumstances. This right carries with it a heavy obligation to ensure that it is not misused. Therefore, even where there is no allegation of misconduct, certain types of uses of force merit an automatic investigation to review what occurred.

There is no greater authority that is granted to a CPD member than the ability to discharge a firearm and potentially take a life. Those incidents are unmatched in their effect on all who are involved, including the individual shot, his or her family and friends, the community, and the officer who fires his or her weapon. IPRA is therefore responsible for investigating all incidents in which a CPD member discharges his or her firearm in a manner that potentially could strike an individual. In addition, IPRA reviews all discharges of Tasers in a manner that could potentially strike an individual.

The fact that we authorize police officers to use force also complicates these investigations. Members of the public have asked why police officers involved in shootings are not immediately arrested, when members of the public who are involved in shootings are. The

OVE

RVIE

W O

F IP

RA

USE

OF

FORC

E - S

HO

OTI

NG

AN

D T

ASE

RS

11


11difference is that our laws allow police officers to use force, including deadly force, in the course of performing their duties. Members of the public do not have that right.

NotificationCPD policies and procedures require notification to IPRA of all discharges of firearms and Tasers. When a CPD member discharges his or her firearm, whether on or off duty, the member is required to make immediate notification within CPD. That notification is then passed to CPD Operations Command, which notifies IPRA at the same time it notifies the Command Staff of CPD. IPRA receives both email and telephonic notifications, normally within minutes of the incident. Upon notification, IPRA issues a Log number that is used to track the incident and any ensuing investigation.

When a CPD member discharges a Taser, the member must notify OEMC and his or her supervisors. The watch commander is required to notify IPRA and obtain a Log number to track the incident.

IPRA ResponseIPRA procedures mandate an immediate response to all instances in which a CPD member has discharged his or her weapon and injured or killed an individual. Investigators from IPRA’s Major Incident Response Team, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, respond and begin an immediate investigation. Each response includes a Shooting Specialist, who is an investigator with specific experience investigating officer-involved shootings.

If no one is struck as a result of a firearm discharge, or in the case of a Taser discharge, the decision whether to respond immediately is made by the on-call IPRA Supervising Investigator in consultation with the on-call Deputy Chief.

IPRA InvestigationWhen IPRA investigators respond to the scene, they are given preliminary descriptions of what occurred and immediately begin to assess the scene to identify potential sources of evidence. This includes identifying physical evidence that needs to be inventoried and ultimately sent for forensic testing, observing conditions, ensuring the photographic documentation of key conditions, and viewing the evidence in its original location before it is retrieved. IPRA’s assessment of the scene also includes evaluating the physical surroundings to identify any potential sources for video evidence or witnesses who may have had a line of sight to the incident, and to document the conditions, such as lighting or weather, that may have impacted the officer’s conduct and perceptions. Finally, IPRA investigators at the scene also observe the procedures being followed for handling evidence and witnesses to provide an independent evaluation of the integrity of the process.

IPRA investigators also begin immediately to identify and interview witnesses to the shooting. To the extent possible, IPRA obtains signed statements from all available witnesses the same day or night of the shooting.

If someone was injured in the shooting and is being treated at a hospital, an IPRA investigator goes immediately to the hospital. Just like at the scene, the investigator identifies any potential witnesses who may be at the hospital and may attempt, depending on circumstances, to obtain statements. The investigator identifies physical evidence, such as clothing, that needs to be inventoried for later forensic testing and ensures this is done. And the investigator gathers preliminary information, such as where the individual’s wounds are located, that will assist in shaping the investigation.

12


Immediately following an officer involved shooting, as a part of IPRA’s preliminary investigation, IPRA, a representative of the State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO), CPD’s on-duty Assistant Deputy Superintendent (ADS), the Watch Commander of the district, and the Detective Division conduct a Roundtable discussion of the events that led to the officer-involved shooting and of the shooting itself. The Roundtable provides important preliminary information about the incident and serves as a starting point for a thorough investigation. At the Roundtable, detectives lead the presentation of the information gathered in the first few hours after the shooting. Any officers involved in the shooting and any available witnesses speak directly to everyone at the Roundtable and provide their first-hand accounts of the incident. All participants in the Roundtable can ask questions of the officers and witnesses.

The remainder of the investigation involves steps similar to those described above for allegations of misconduct. A canvass for witnesses is performed within hours of the shooting. In addition, throughout the next day IPRA investigators return to the location in an effort to identify and interview additional witnesses. IPRA investigators gather physical and documentary evidence, request any forensic testing, and interview the involved CPD members. If the investigation reveals potential misconduct, the matter is converted to a complaint register and the implicated CPD members are served with allegations of misconduct prior to their interviews.

At the conclusion of this investigation, IPRA determines whether the conduct of the CPD members was consistent with CPD policy. If IPRA finds any policy violations, they are processed just like all other alleged misconduct, with IPRA’s recommendation on the finding and discipline being forwarded to CPD for review.

In addition, every officer-involved shooting in which someone is injured is evaluated to determine whether it was consistent with state and federal law. Therefore, the day after a shooting incident, IPRA notifies the Professional Standards Unit of the SAO. The SAO decides whether the shooting was legally justified, or whether criminal charges should be brought against the involved CPD member(s). Within days of the shooting, IPRA provides its preliminary information to the SAO. IPRA continues to update the SAO on the IPRA investigation, and sometimes works on the investigation side-by-side with SAO investigators, until the SAO determines it has sufficient information to decide whether it will criminally prosecute the CPD member.

IPRA hopes to expand these procedures and institute a mandatory response for all discharges of a firearm, whether or not someone is injured. However, the investigation of shootings where no one is injured is a new responsibility given to IPRA under the Ordinance, which the former OPS did not have. At present, manpower issues in conjunction with limitations under the IPRA employee union contract prevent expanding the situations in which IPRA has a mandatory immediate response. It is our goal in the coming year to address these obstacles and institute those additional mandatory responses.

Extraordinary Occurrences

IPRA also investigates all cases in which a person is injured or dies while in police custody or where an extraordinary or unusual occurrence occurs in lockup facilities (Extraordinary Occurrence), even absent any allegation of misconduct. Under CPD policy, IPRA receives immediate notification of any Extraordinary Occurrence in police custody. Extraordinary Occurrences include a wide array of situations, including incidents in which a person is injured while in custody, either by an act of a CPD member, battery by a third party, or through an accident, such as slipping on a puddle of water on the floor. Extraordinary

OVE

RVIE

W O

F IP

RA

EXTR

AORD

INA

RY O

CCU

RREN

CES

| LA

WSU

IT S

ETTL

EMEN

TS

13


13Occurrences also include self-inflicted injury, such as an attempted suicide. They even include events where a person in custody injures a CPD member, even without injury to the person in custody.

Upon notification, IPRA evaluates whether an immediate response is needed based on the initial information. IPRA then performs an initial investigation, which can include gathering all relevant documentary and physical evidence and interviewing witnesses. If the initial investigation reveals a potential policy violation, IPRA follows the process set forth above for investigating an allegation of misconduct. Otherwise, IPRA closes the matter with a finding that there is no evidence of misconduct.

Lawsuit Settlements

IPRA reviews all cases settled by the City of Chicago Department of Law in which a complaint register was filed against a CPD member. If further investigation is warranted, IPRA conducts such investigations.

When a lawsuit is settled, the IPRA investigation of the alleged misconduct could still be pending, it could be closed with a finding on the merits, or it could be closed because of lack of cooperation by the complainant and the absence of an affidavit. When the IPRA investigation is still pending at the time of settlement, the investigator is alerted to the settlement and follows up, as appropriate, to ensure IPRA has access to information generated during the litigation. If the investigation has already been closed with a finding, the lawsuit will be reviewed to determine whether it included any new allegations or accused officers, or developed any new information warranting re-opening the IPRA investigation. If the IPRA investigation was closed because of no cooperation and no affidavit, after settlement IPRA will determine whether the complainant gave a deposition in the lawsuit and will also re-approach the complainant to see if he or she is now willing to cooperate. If the affidavit requirement can be satisfied, IPRA will then re-open the investigation; if not, the investigation will remain closed.

Criminal Misconduct

Some IPRA investigations include allegations of criminal conduct by CPD members. IPRA works closely with the Professional Standards Unit of the SAO in investigating such allegations and ensuring that the SAO has the information it needs to make its decision regarding potential criminal charges.7

The SAO and IPRA’s predecessor, OPS, jointly agreed on a protocol for the types of cases in which IPRA provides notice to the SAO in order to allow the SAO to consider criminal charges. IPRA alerts the SAO of any allegations falling within those guidelines as quickly as possible, usually within half a business day. IPRA then shares its investigation with the Assistant State’s Attorney as the investigation progresses, at times working jointly to develop needed evidence. IPRA meets with the SAO on a regular basis to discuss open investigations for which the SAO is considering criminal charges.

The SAO notifies IPRA if it determines that it will not pursue criminal charges. At that time, IPRA can compel the accused CPD members to provide statements and complete its investigation like any other alleged misconduct, with a determination whether CPD policy was violated.

7 IPRA has also established a working relationship with the United States Attorneys’ Office and works with the FBI and federal prosecutors as appropriate.

| CRI

MIN

AL M

ISCO

NDU

CT

14


If the SAO decides to pursue charges, in most cases IPRA will suspend its investigation without interviewing the accused CPD members, and wait for the resolution of the criminal charges. IPRA normally will not compel the CPD member to provide a statement while criminal charges are pending. In limited situations, where the CPD member’s statement is not necessary to concluding the investigation, IPRA will offer the CPD member the opportunity to provide a voluntary statement, and then complete its investigation before resolution of the criminal charges.

Recommendations of Changes to CPD Policies and Operating Procedures

The Ordinance allows IPRA to make recommendations to the Superintendent of Police, the Police Board, and the Chairman of the City Council Committee on Police and Fire concerning revisions to CPD policy and operating procedures. IPRA investigations can lead to a wealth of information that is useful for CPD in improving its policies and practices. IPRA can identify trends in the types of conduct triggering misconduct complaints that suggest areas where training could be improved or policy made more explicit. now that IPRA is a separate department from CPD, it is vital that appropriate communication be maintained so that IPRA can provide its feedback for CPD to use in evaluating CPD’s policies, procedures, and training.

IPRA has discussed with CPD having quarterly meetings between IPRA and the CPD Bureau of Professional Standards in order for IPRA to share what it is learning in its investigations. We hope to implement this process fully in the coming year.

Frequently Asked Questions About IPRA

How is IPRA different from OPS?Because this is a newly created City agency, many community members and CPD members are interested in how IPRA is different from the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that it replaced.

IPRA is independent of CPD, whereas OPS was a unit within the CPD chain of command. Previously, the Superintendent of Police could tell OPS what to investigate and how. The Superintendent does not have that authority over IPRA.

IPRA has subpoena authority.

IPRA has the power to make recommendations to the Superintendent of the CPD, the Police Board, and the Chairman of the City Council Committee on Police and Fire concerning revisions in policies and operating procedures to increase the efficiency of CPD.

IPRA has a transparent process to handle situations in which the Superintendent disagrees with IPRA’s disciplinary recommendations.

IPRA submits public quarterly reports regarding its activities.

IPRA has a timeline for completing investigations within six months. If investigations are not completed within six months, IPRA notifies the Mayor’s office, the City Council Committee on Police and Fire, the complainant, and the CPD member named in the complaint, regarding the reasons why the investigation is not complete.

OVE

RVIE

W O

F IP

RA

RECO

MM

ENDA

TIO

NS

OF

CHA

NG

ES T

O C

PD P

OLI

CIES

AN

D O

PERA

TIN

G P

ROCE

DU

RES

| FAQ

ABO

UT

IPRA

15


15

How long should an investigation take?The Ordinance establishes a guideline for completing IPRA investigations within six months. It is an ambitious goal, but attainable as an appropriate timeframe for completing all but exceptional investigations into allegations of misconduct. IPRA hopes when it is fully staffed with trained investigators that it will meet that goal.

IPRA is currently meeting the goal for more than half of its investigations. When the goal is not met, there may be any of a number of contributing factors. One is manpower, as IPRA is continuing to fill vacancies and all new hires undergo extensive training before they are ready to shoulder a full caseload.

In addition, some steps in the investigative process are beyond IPRA’s control and may extend the length of the investigation. For instance, IPRA often needs reports from third parties to move forward with investigations, including medical records from hospitals, the official version of the medical examiner’s report, or the results of forensic testing. An investigation may also be extended if witnesses are difficult to locate or reluctant to cooperate. Once a witness has been identified, IPRA investigators do everything they can to interview that witness. Those efforts, however, may extend the time it takes to complete the investigation. Some witnesses may refuse to speak while civil or criminal judicial proceedings are pending, requiring IPRA’s investigation to wait until those processes are either complete or pass a certain stage. IPRA’s investigation may also be extended while the SAO considers the evidence and whether to pursue criminal charges related to the alleged misconduct.

16


IMPROvInG InvESTIGATIOnS

Timeliness and Caseload Management

In its first year, IPRA closed more than 2150 investigations, increasing its work output and the timeliness of investigations, as compared with investigations conducted by its predecessor OPS. IPRA has closed more than 700 of the 1200 cases pending when the new agency was created. During this time frame, IPRA continued to receive, on average, 200 or more new investigations each month. However, IPRA increased the number of investigations closed each month so that it is closing nearly as many, and in some months more, investigations than it opens. This represents an increase in output from 150 to 170 cases closed each month, to more than 200.

Investigations Closed

Sept 2007 162

4th Q 2007 368

1st Q 2008 554

2nd Q 2008 670

Jul-Aug 2008 404

TOTALS 2158

In addition, while IPRA was addressing the backlog of old cases, it was also managing to complete investigations on the majority of its new cases within the six-month timeline established in the Ordinance. With a number of new investigators in training, IPRA looks forward to the day when the backlog is gone and it closes all but exceptional cases within this timeframe.

IPRA achieved this result through a multi-faceted approach. When established in September 2007, substantial numbers of IPRA’s investigator positions were vacant. IPRA immediately performed an audit to identify all pending investigations and the work needed to complete each one. Based on the results of the audit, IPRA adopted a four-pronged approach to address the impact the staffing vacancies were having on its ability to keep up with its workload: for the short-term, IPRA hired outside experts and authorized overtime that was carefully monitored; at the same time IPRA worked on the long-term solution of hiring personnel to fill the vacancies. IPRA also identified and addressed inefficiencies in its processes.

IMPROVInG InVESTIGATIOnS

Timeliness and Caseload Management

Strengthening the Investigator Ranks

Shooting Investigations

Audio Recording of Interviews

Establishing Protocols for Interactions with CPD and Other Government Agencies

IMPR

OVI

NG

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

TIM

ELIN

ESS

AN

D C

ASE

LOA

D M

AN

AGEM

ENT

| STR

ENG

THEN

ING

TH

E IN

VEST

IGAT

OR

RAN

KS

17


17IPRA streamlined its procedures to increase its ability to complete investigations and addressed external causes of delays. When IPRA was formed, investigators were, at times, waiting months for prints of pictures taken to document injuries to a complainant, or a crime scene. IPRA raised concerns with CPD about this delay and new procedures were put in place that provide IPRA with the prints within days of when the pictures are taken. IPRA also replaced its outdated network and network connections, and the servers running its computer system were upgraded to allow IPRA to access the system at better speeds and with more reliability. IPRA obtained high-volume document scanners, more appropriate for the large volume of scanning required by a paperless investigations system that was implemented in 2006. All of these developments allow IPRA investigators to complete their work more quickly and efficiently.

Internally, IPRA re-examined its procedures and eliminated some administrative tasks previously performed by investigators. IPRA also rotated support personnel from other assignments to assist the investigators with other administrative tasks that were monopolizing investigator time and taking them away from their primary investigative responsibilities. Finally, IPRA capitalized on some of the efficiencies offered by its computer systems to eliminate redundant reports. In the coming months, IPRA hopes to achieve other efficiencies and automate key reporting capabilities, saving additional Investigator and Supervising Investigator time.

IPRA has used overtime in three ways. In the Fall of 2007, investigators were authorized to work up to five hours each week of overtime on their own caseloads. Starting in April 2008, Intake Aides and support staff were offered overtime work on weekends to perform work investigators would otherwise be performing and to free up investigators for core investigative tasks. Investigators were also offered additional overtime during which they wrote final summaries for investigations that were complete except for the writing of the final summary report. As a direct result, more than 130 cases were summarized and closed using this overtime assistance.

Starting in March 2008, IPRA brought in outside experts to work side by side with its investigators and assist with the case load. The workers included attorneys from local law firms and retired FBI agents. Each worker was assigned to an investigative team and assisted with investigative tasks. The tasks assigned varied based on the strengths of the workers. All outside personnel worked under the close supervision of IPRA Super- vising Investigators.

Strengthening the Investigator Ranks

Hiring New InvestigatorsAs mentioned above, another priority of the last year, and the long-term solution to the timeliness of IPRA investigations and managing the caseload for IPRA, has been hiring qualified investigators to fill the Investigator and Supervising Investigator vacancies that existed when IPRA was created. Through much hard work and the assistance of the City of Chicago’s Department of Human Resources, IPRA was able to start interviewing Investigator candidates on October 9, 2007, just five weeks after it was created. Since then, significant time and resources have been expended on interviews of Investigators and the entire hiring process. To date, IPRA has interviewed more than 85 candidates for investigative positions, has hired 14 candidates, and has internally promoted six candidates. IPRA currently has seven vacancies in its Investigator and Supervising Investigator ranks. Of those, five candidates have been identified to fill those positions, and IPRA hopes to have those investigators employed by the end of 2008.

18


It is imperative to IPRA’s long-term success that we establish a strong foundation, including highly qualified investigators. IPRA seeks investigators who are detail-oriented, intelligent, analytical, and objective. Successful candidates have had a range of prior experience and reflect the diversity of Chicago. Some have criminal justice degrees; others have years of experience as investigators in other contexts.

It is significant that IPRA has succeeded in filling nearly all its investigator vacancies. IPRA has not, however, yet seen the full benefits of this. The new hires began working at IPRA starting in March 2007, with a second group in May, and a third in August. After a new investigator is hired, it can take up to six months of training before he or she will begin to function independently as an investigator and many more months before being assigned a full case load. IPRA looks forward to the contribution of these investigators in the coming year.

Investigator TrainingHiring talented individuals is just the start. High quality, recurrent training is vital to any profession, and investigation is no different. Therefore, IPRA focused on two training programs this past year: a curriculum of recurrent training for all investigators and standardized training for new investigators.

Recurrent Training Curriculum for All Investigators and Supervising InvestigatorsFor current investigators, IPRA established the four-part annual training program described below, including instruction on: forensic sciences, CPD policy, interview and advanced investigative techniques, and special topics identified for in-house training segments.

Many IPRA investigations involve requests for forensic testing, such as fingerprint or DnA analysis or testing for biological or gun-shot residue. The Illinois State Police Forensic Science Center, which performs the forensic testing, provided three half-day training sessions on the various tests they perform and the results they can obtain. The training covered Biology/DnA, CODIS, Drug Chemistry, Firearms/Toolmarks, Footwear/Tiretracks, GSR, Latent Prints, Microscopy, Toxicology, and Trace Chemistry. All Investigators and Supervising Investigators were required to attend.

IPRA investigators must be well versed in CPD policy because the conclusion of every investigation requires a determination whether the proven conduct violates CPD policy. Therefore all IPRA Investigators and Supervising Investigators were also required to attend a two-day training at the CPD Academy. This training focused on what CPD teaches its members in areas that are frequently the subject of IPRA investigations: use of force, use of deadly force, search and seizure, and vehicle stops.

Even the most skilled interviewers can always improve. IPRA is therefore also arranging for outside volunteers to provide training to IPRA investigators on interview techniques and advanced investigative skills. The training is intended to teach some new techniques, address any bad habits that have developed over the years, and improve performance in interviews. These skills will be important to adopt appropriate interview techniques as investigators shift from memorializing interviews in written statements to memorializing interviews through verbatim audio recordings. (See infra.) IPRA intends to expand this curriculum each year to ensure that the investigative skills of its investigators continue to grow and improve.

Finally, IPRA is creating in-house training segments that will be approximately one hour long and will be provided once a month to address specific topics that arise regarding the investigative process. Topics for this training will come from internal review of investigations to identify areas that need improvement. Another source will be arbitrator and Police Board

IMPR

OVI

NG

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

STRE

NG

THEN

ING

TH

E IN

VEST

IGAT

OR

RAN

KS |

SHO

OTI

NG

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

19


19decisions that result from a CPD member’s appeal of the discipline decisions for both IPRA and IAD investigations. Finally, IPRA has reached out to individual members of the Police Board and to the attorneys at the Department of Law who defend the investigations’ outcomes in Police Board and arbitration hearings, for any insights they have into ways to improve the investigations.

Standardized Training for New InvestigatorsIPRA also created a standardized training regime for all new investigators. The training includes both formal instruction and hands-on training under the direction of experienced Investigators and Supervising Investigators. This training occurs over several months.

All new investigators begin with a week of training within IPRA where they are introduced to IPRA procedures, IPRA investigations, and the most frequently applied CPD policies. They also attend two weeks of training at the CPD Academy arranged by the Detective Division and attended by Internal Affairs investigators as well. In this training they receive more in-depth training about CPD policies and procedures, both to assist in evaluating the conduct of CPD members and to instruct them how to navigate CPD to obtain the information they need from CPD in order to complete their investigations. They also receive basic investigative training in areas such as witness identification, line-up procedures, interviewing witnesses, and documenting those interviews.

The new investigators begin their hands-on training by shadowing Intake Aides and investigators assigned to IPRA’s Intake and Rapid Response teams. This allows them to see how IPRA receives complaints and commences investigations. next, they are assigned to IPRA investigative teams to shadow investigators and to perform investigative tasks themselves under close supervision. In addition, they are required to go on a ride along with CPD patrol officers and detectives and observe a CPD lock-up shift, so that they can see first-hand the procedures that are memorialized in the CPD policies, as well as gain a better understanding of the context for the situations they are investigating.

Shooting Investigations

While officer-involved shootings represent a relatively small percentage of the total investigations IPRA conducts, shooting investigations receive a high level of attention from the public. They have also received a great deal of attention within IPRA this past year. Starting with the Chief Administrator’s first conversation with Interim CPD Superintendent Dana Starks, how IPRA and CPD respond to officer-involved shootings has been a priority. IPRA has instituted a number of reforms and additional ones are on the horizon.

More Proactive InvestigationsIPRA’s procedures for shooting investigations are described in detail above. They differ from how investigations were being performed immediately before the creation of IPRA in several key aspects. First, IPRA has become more proactive in commencing its investigation immediately. IPRA investigators now interview and immediately obtain written, signed statements from witnesses, rather than waiting until after the Roundtable has concluded or longer. This allows IPRA to get the witnesses’ versions of events before they can be tainted by talking to other people, or by what they see or hear on television or from other sources.

IPRA also assesses the integrity of the CPD processes and procedures while at the scene. IPRA has raised issues where it had concerns about crime scene integrity – including multiple people in the crime scene before it was fully processed and crime scenes that

20


were not fully encompassed by the CPD tape. In addition, IPRA raised concerns about the appearance of tainted statements when CPD members gave joint “walk through statements,” rather than individual ones. Both of these issues were immediately addressed by CPD. IPRA would like to do more in this area, and in the coming year will seek to obtain resources to allow it to better perform this function.

IPRA, CPD, and the Illinois State Police Forensic Science Center established a new procedure to ensure IPRA and CPD both are able to obtain needed forensic testing on shared evidence. Some forensic tests, once performed, preclude other types of testing from being performed. Therefore, it is important that all parties know which tests are being requested to avoid inconsistent requests. IPRA and CPD jointly attend a Major Case Review at the Illinois State Police Forensic Science Center for every shooting, to address shared evidence. These meetings allow IPRA and CPD to resolve any conflicts and assure IPRA that none of the tests performed at the request of CPD will jeopardize the IPRA investigation. IPRA has also instituted a requirement in shooting investigations that even if the investigation reveals no potential issues, a formal statement must be taken from all involved officers. The IPRA investigation cannot merely rely on a summary of Roundtable statements by officers.

Refraining from Pre-judging the FactsIn the moments after a shooting it is vital that the public and the involved CPD members understand that there will be a thorough and fair investigation, and that there has not been a rush to judgment and premature analysis of the incident based on incomplete information. IPRA’s first conversations with CPD focused on this issue.

Historically for most shootings, after the Roundtable concluded CPD would state that based on the information then available, the shooting was consistent with CPD policies and procedures. At the same time, the former OPS, and now IPRA, was supposed to be investigating to determine whether the shooting was in fact consistent with policy. The public perceived a conflict, which caused them to doubt whether OPS’s investigation was independent, fair, and thorough, or whether the result was pre-ordained by CPD’s conclusion. After the early discussions, CPD stopped issuing statements that reached a conclusion on the merits of the shooting. For its part, IPRA began to issue a statement indicating that the shooting had occurred and that IPRA was investigating it. These changes in practice eliminated the mixed messages caused by prior practices.

This shift also reinforced the fundamental message that IPRA would not pre-judge an incident. IPRA does not release even preliminary information until it has had a chance to review all of the evidence, and until all witnesses have had a chance to come forward and provide their statements. To do otherwise would suggest that IPRA has already decided what the facts of the event are, which could discourage witnesses who have something different to add from coming forward.

Future Systemic ChangesIPRA is working with CPD to develop a non-disciplinary, internal panel at CPD that can review all shootings to identify any systemic concerns that CPD should address, such as tactical issues, training, policy failures, and equipment malfunctions. Most other major metropolitan law enforcement agencies, and many smaller ones, routinely review all officer-involved shootings to identify such systemic issues. The purpose of such a review is to go beyond the preliminary question of whether the shooting itself was justified and within policy, to examine the entire incident in an effort to determine whether there are any ways that the law enforcement agency can improve its performance.

IMPR

OVI

NG

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

SHO

OTI

NG

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

| AU

DIO

REC

ORD

ING

OF

INTE

RVIE

WS

21


21Until now, after IPRA completed its investigation, unless IPRA found a policy violation, there was no established procedure for CPD review of the incident to determine whether it raised systemic concerns that CPD should address. Through this new process, CPD would examine every shooting once IPRA has completed its investigation, to identify potential non-disciplinary concerns. For instance, this type of review might reveal that agency-wide policy or training provides insufficient guidance to CPD members in how best to handle a particular situation and should be modified. The review might also reveal that training in general is sufficient, but the individual involved officers need targeted refresher training. This review can also identify issues with equipment provided to officers. Or the review may reveal outstanding performance by officers meriting commendation. All of this is valuable information to help the agency improve.

IPRA and CPD continue to work together to develop this process and establish guidelines to ensure IPRA’s investigations gather the necessary information for a thorough evaluation of these systemic issues.

Audio Recording of Interviews

IPRA has begun a pilot program to audio record its interviews of members of the public. Currently an IPRA investigator will interview a member of the public and then compose a written statement based on the interview. The person interviewed reviews the written statement for accuracy and signs it. This process creates a relatively accurate account of the interview, and there are assurances by the review and signing of the statement that the person interviewed agrees with the information recorded. However, there is always the possibility that this process will fail to capture information revealed during the interview that seemed insignificant at the time, but later turns out to be very significant. Recording the interviews eliminates that risk, creating an accurate and complete record, and is standard practice in many jurisdictions.8

Through its pilot program, IPRA has already found two very beneficial uses for recording witness statements. IPRA investigators interviewing a woman who is legally blind asked whether she would be willing to have them record the interview rather than creating a written statement for her to read. She was eager to do so. She explained that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for her to review the written statement because of her poor eyesight. IPRA has also used audio recording where it is taking a statement in a language other than English through a translator. By recording the IPRA investigator’s questions, the translation of the question, the original answer, and the translation of the answer, IPRA has a complete record of what was said. Should an issue be raised later as to the accuracy of the translation, the recording will be available to resolve any disputes.

Establishing Protocols for Interactions with CPD and Other Government Agencies

Although IPRA is an independent department, its work is centered on the conduct of CPD members. Therefore, much of what IPRA does requires interaction with and cooperation from CPD. In addition, some of our responsibilities overlap in shared areas, such as when IPRA performs the intake of an allegation of misconduct that CPD will be responsible for investigating, or the shared database with information about administrative investigations. It was therefore necessary to establish protocols to govern these interactions.

8 Under Illinois law, in order to record these interviews, IPRA must have the consent of the person recorded. IPRA is hopeful that most, if not all, members of the public will consent.

22


Over the past year, IPRA and CPD have worked jointly to identify areas needing a protocol and to agree to procedures for our interactions. The result is a growing list of protocols governing important areas.

IPRA has also standardized procedures for obtaining evidence and information regarding incidents on Chicago Public Schools (CPS) property. IPRA worked with CPS to design an incident form that requests CPS to retain all video recordings/images, records, documents, and/or any other materials associated with an allegation or complaint involving a CPD member. IPRA and CPS also established procedures for IPRA to obtain necessary reports or other information from CPS.

IPRA is working with the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to create similar standard procedures.

IPRA has also established procedures with the Cook County Sheriff for allowing IPRA investigators to conduct interviews of individuals detained at the County Jail. The new process provides a quiet location away from other inmates, for an effective interview.

IMPR

OVI

NG

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

ESTA

BLIS

HIN

G P

ROTO

COLS

FO

R IN

TERA

CTIO

NS

WIT

H C

PD A

ND

OTH

ER G

OVE

RNM

ENT

AGEN

CIES

23


23

24


BRInGInG IPRA’S MESSAGE TO CPD AnD ThE PUBLIC

Community Outreach

It is absolutely vital for IPRA to communicate with all of Chicago’s communities about IPRA’s role and investigative process. Increasing transparency has been one of the primary goals of IPRA’s outreach efforts this year. IPRA will continue to work with community groups, elected officials, and CPD members to provide updates, develop outreach strategies, and develop communication programs. Our intent is to build community networks based on mutual trust and respect to help with our overall mission.

Community OrganizationsCommunity organizations, faith-based institutions, and community residents were actively involved with the creation of IPRA. IPRA continues to meet with community organizations across Chicago. IPRA has participated in block club events, community forums, and smaller community meetings. In an effort to reach as broad a spectrum of organizations as possible, IPRA mailed letters to more than 900 community groups, faith-based institutions, and community members across Chicago explaining IPRA’s role and investigative process. Community groups IPRA met with include the Chicago Coalition for Police Accountability, Lakeview Action Coalition, the L.E.A.D.E.R.S. network, the Union League Club, and the Chicago Council of Lawyers. IPRA also presented at a forum sponsored by a criminal justice class at the Caruthers Center for Inner City Studies at northeastern Illinois University.

Faith-based institutions have represented complainants of alleged police misconduct. IPRA continues to communicate with faith-based leaders regarding our investigative process. IPRA understands and acts upon the idea that providing greater information about what we do and how we do it will ultimately build trust in our agency and the disciplinary process.

City CouncilThe Aldermen on the Chicago City Council have hundreds of interactions each day with constituents and are therefore a vital link between IPRA and the communities of Chicago. IPRA therefore has reached out to the Aldermen for two purposes. First, IPRA has sought

BRInGInG IPRA’S MESSAGE TO CPD AnD THE PUBLIC

Community Outreach

Outreach to CPD

Abstracts of Completed Investigations

BRIN

GIN

G IP

RA’S

MES

SAG

E TO

CP

D AN

D TH

E PU

BLIC

COM

MU

NIT

Y O

UTR

EACH

25


25information regarding concerns about police conduct and IPRA investigations that they hear from their constituents. Second, IPRA has sought to enlist the Aldermen in IPRA’s efforts to educate the public about IPRA.

IPRA sent letters to all fifty Aldermen describing IPRA’s investigative process. Attached to the letter was a flyer for community residents that detailed the process for registering a complaint or compliment regarding a CPD member.

IPRA has also met with Aldermen in their ward offices to address specific issues concerning the newly formed department. In our ongoing meetings we continue to discuss ways to make IPRA’s reports more transparent and IPRA’s overall goal of building the infrastructure of the new agency.

As requested, IPRA has also provided Aldermen with additional information about IPRA that can be included in aldermanic newsletters to the wards. IPRA has also attended ward meetings as requested to explain our process and answer any questions.

Finally, IPRA has appeared at hearings of the Police and Fire Committee of the City Council. These hearings offer an important opportunity for IPRA to provide information about its procedures and progress, as well as to receive vital feedback from Aldermen. In addition, one hearing included lengthy testimony from the public, which provided significant insights into the issues being faced by those testifying.

IPRA looks forward to continuing to work with all the Aldermen to communicate with every community in Chicago.

Chicago Police Board MeetingsThe Chicago Police Board is an independent civilian body that oversees various activities of the CPD. The Board holds monthly public meetings at CPD Headquarters. Any member of the public can attend and speak about CPD. IPRA attends these monthly meetings as a guest of the Board.

IPRA’s attendance allows the public a regular opportunity to raise concerns and for IPRA to respond to those concerns. In addition, if someone appears with a complaint to register, IPRA has a Supervising Investigator at the meeting who can gather the relevant information and, if possible, accompany the complainant immediately to the IPRA offices to register the complaint and begin the investigative process.

IPRA WebsiteIPRA informs the Chicago community through its website – www.iprachicago.org. The IPRA website includes IPRA’s mission, procedures for filing complaints, investigative process, quarterly reports, and the City of Chicago Ordinance that created the agency. The website also has links for members of the public to register complaints and compliments regarding CPD members.

Communicating with ComplainantsIPRA sends at least three letters to every complainant on investigations retained by IPRA. The first letter is sent to acknowledge that the complaint was received and normally identifies the assigned investigator. The second letter is sent when IPRA completes its investigation and forwards its recommendation to CPD. The third letter is sent at the conclusion of all appeals, when the case is finally closed, and informs the complainant of

26


the final outcome. In addition, IPRA, by Ordinance, sends letters to the complainant and to the accused CPD member for every investigation not concluded within six months. That letter details the reasons the investigation is not yet complete. Providing the complainant with these various letters and their information is an important part of the public understanding the process.

These IPRA letters, and the attention that is paid to them, have led CPD to re-examine how it communicates with the complainants in the investigations that are referred to CPD for resolution. CPD is now considering voluntarily sending its own letters when CPD’s investigation of a complaint extends beyond six months. Similarly, CPD is looking at the other letters that IPRA sends to complainants throughout the investigation process for possible replication. Given that a large percentage of the complaints that come in through IPRA are referred to CPD for resolution, increasing communication with complainants is an important element to increasing community understanding of the process. CPD should be commended for these efforts.

Outreach to CPD

As important as it is for the public to understand IPRA’s process, it is equally important for CPD members to understand it. Therefore, IPRA has invested significant efforts this past year to address CPD members in various settings. IPRA will continue these efforts in the coming year.

Chicago Police Department Training Academy Recruit Classes IPRA’s Chief Administrator addresses each class of new police officer recruits while they are at the Academy in their recruit training. First, the role of IPRA and how the Ordinance functions are explained. It is important for recruits to understand that in its investigations, IPRA assesses officer conduct against the policies and procedures of the CPD and that all discipline recommendations are reviewed by the CPD chain of command, up to and including the Superintendent. That means that if a CPD member is disciplined after an IPRA investigation, it is not just IPRA that is saying policy was violated, but CPD’s chain of command as well. It is also important that they recognize that the Superintendent cannot arbitrarily modify IPRA recommendations for discipline; rather, he must provide a rationale he is willing to articulate in writing and make public. This avoids decisions tainted by personal likes or dislikes of particular individuals unrelated to their performance. The recruits are also told that they are required to cooperate with IPRA investigations under both the Ordinance and CPD General Orders.

IPRA also provides examples of investigations where CPD members have “gotten into trouble.” A primary focus is on distinguishing between an honest mistake that causes a policy violation, and may result in minor discipline, and intentional misconduct, including false statements, that is going to lead to severe punishment, up to and including termination of employment.

Most importantly, the recruits have the opportunity to ask questions. There are often many questions about how IPRA performs certain tasks. Rumors abound and this provides a good opportunity to answer them.

BRIN

GIN

G IP

RA’S

MES

SAG

E TO

CP

D AN

D TH

E PU

BLIC

OU

TREA

CH T

O C

PD |

ABS

TRAC

TS O

F CO

MPL

ETED

INVE

STIG

ATIO

NS

27


27

Chicago Police Department Training Academy Promotional Classes The Chief Administrator has also addressed classes of promoted detectives, sergeants, and lieutenants. Many of the same topics are discussed as with the recruits. There is an overall explanation of how IPRA functions and a discussion of the areas where they are most likely to interact with IPRA. IPRA also provides specific examples from investigations of the officers’ roles as supervisors and role models in helping other officers avoid trouble, mistakes and providing good advice on honestly reporting it when it does.

Roll CallsIPRA has also attended roll calls in many of the Districts. IPRA provides a brief description of the agency, similar to the information provided to the recruits and emphasizing what has changed and what has not with the creation of IPRA. The officers are then given an opportunity to ask questions, which always results in a number of very good questions. These are an important opportunity for the rank and file officers to hear for themselves about IPRA.

Union LeadershipIn order to explain its process and goals, IPRA met with the leadership of the unions representing sworn CPD members: FOP and PBPA. IPRA will continue to be available to answer any questions that may arise and to hear the concerns of union membership.

Abstracts of Completed Investigations

This past year, IPRA took a first step towards increased transparency by providing quarterly statistical reports and posting them on IPRA’s website for the general public. With this Annual Report, IPRA introduces abstracts of completed, sustained investigations. (See Appendix C.)

These abstracts provide the public and CPD members with more detailed information about individual sustained cases. The information includes the allegation, findings and recommended discipline in each case. This allows both the public and CPD members to assess the types of misconduct that is occurring and the discipline that is being recommended by IPRA. This is an important step in increasing transparency.

28


2007-2008 – By ThE nUMBERS9

Total allegations and notifications: 9,578

Total retained by IPRA: 2,501

Total referred to States’ Attorney’s Office77

Total investigations closed by IPRA: 2,158

Caseloads as of August 31, 2008: 1,579

Table 1: Overview of IPRA Caseload by Quarter

Intake (all allegations and

notifications)

IPRA Investigations Opened

IPRA Investigations

ClosedIPRA Caseload

Sept. 2007 746 216 162 1,290

4Q 2007 2,273 613 368 1,535

1Q 2008 2,366 590 554 1,571

2Q 2008 2,436 640 670 1,541

Jul - Aug 2008 1,757 442 404 1,579

TOTALS 9,578 2,501 2,158

Table 2: Primary Categories of Investigations Commenced by IPRA 2007 - 2008

Excessive Force 1723

Verbal Abuse Including Bias 199

Domestic Violence 196

Coercion 7

Police Involved Shootings with Injury 42

Extraordinary Occurrences 59

Table 3: Closed Investigations

SustainedNot

Sustained Unfounded ExoneratedNo

Affidavit Shooting EO

Sept. 2007

1 37 20 1 87 – –

4Q 2007 5 76 78 3 169 – 7

1Q 2008 13 110 77 2 259 2 –

2Q 2008 16 203 86 4 230 3 19

Jul - Aug 2008

11 94 57 2 144 4 5

TOTALS 46 520 318 12 889 9 31

9 September 5, 2007 - August 31, 2008

2007

- 20

08 -

BY T

HE N

UM

BERS

i

APPEnDIx A

Chapter 2-57 InDEPEnDEnT POLICE REvIEw AUThORITy – City of Chicago Ordinance

ii

-1-

Chapter 2-57 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY

2-57-010 Definitions.The following terms wherever used in this chapter shall have the following meanings

unless a different meaning appears from the context:

(a) Chief administrator means the chief administrator of independent police review.

(b) Coercion means the use of express or implied threats of violence that puts aperson in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to actagainst his or her will.

(c) Department means the Chicago department of police.

(d) Police Board means the police board established by Chapter 2-84 of this code, asamended.

(e) Superintendent means the superintendent of police or his designatedrepresentative.

(f) Verbal abuse means the use of a remark which is overtly insulting, mocking orbelittling directed at a person based upon the actual or perceived race, color, sex,religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity of that person.

2-57-020 Establishment--Composition.There is hereby established an office of the municipal government to be known as the

independent police review authority, which shall include the chief administrator of independentpolice review and such deputies, assistants and other employees as may be provided for in theannual appropriation ordinance. The offices of the independent police review authority shall belocated in a facility outside of the department of police.

2-57-030 Chief Administrator --Appointment as chief administrative authority.The chief administrator shall be the chief executive officer of the independent police

review authority. The chief administrator shall be appointed by the mayor subject to the approvalof the city council. The chief administrator shall be responsible for the general management andcontrol of the independent police review authority and shall have full and complete authority toadminister the office in a manner consistent with the ordinances of the city, the laws of the state,and the rules and regulations of the police board. The chief administrator shall be appointed for aterm of four years, or until his or her successor is appointed and approved. In the event that thechief administrator does not complete his or her four-year term, the mayor shall, subject to the

iii

-2-

approval of the city council, appoint a new chief administrator who shall be appointed for a newfour-year term.

2-57-040 Chief Administrator--Powers and duties.In addition to other powers conferred herein, the chief administrator shall have the

following powers and duties:

(a) To receive and register all complaints filed against members of the department;

(b) To conduct investigations into complaints against members of the departmentconcerning domestic violence, excessive force, coercion, and verbal abuse;

(c) To conduct investigations into all cases in which a department member discharges his or her firearm, stun gun, or taser in a manner which potentiallycould strike an individual, even if no allegation of misconduct is made;

(d) To conduct investigations into cases where the death of a person or an injurysustained by a person occurs while in police custody or where an extraordinary orunusual occurrence occurs in lockup facilities, even when no allegation ofmisconduct is made;

(e) To review all cases settled by the department of law in which a complaint registerwas filed against a member of the department, and if, in the opinion of the chiefadministrator, further investigation is warranted, to conduct such investigation;

(f) To forward all other complaints filed against members of the department to thedepartment’s internal affairs division;

(g) To conduct investigations in a manner consistent with Article IV of Chapter 2-84,the rules and regulations established by the police board, and all departmentoperating procedures, general orders, collective bargaining agreements, and otherapplicable laws and regulations;

(h) To make recommendations to the superintendent concerning the appropriatedisciplinary action against members of the department found to be in violation ofdepartment rules and regulations;

(i) To make recommendations to the superintendent, the police board, and thechairman of the city council committee on police and fire concerning revisions inpolicy and operating procedures to increase the efficiency of the department;

(j) To request information related to an investigation from any employee or officer ofthe city;

iv

-3-

(k) To issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses for purposes of examination and the production of documents and other items for inspectionand/or duplication. Issuance of subpoenas shall be subject to the restrictionscontained in Section 2-57-050;

(l) To address police personnel and community groups on regulations and operationsof the independent police review authority; and

(m) To promulgate rules, regulations and procedures for the conduct of the independent police review authority’s investigations consistent with therequirements of collective bargaining agreements, due process of law and equalprotection under the law.

Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the chief administrator from referring a complaintor information concerning a member of the department to the appropriate federal, state or locallaw enforcement authorities.

2-57-050 Subpoena issuance.The chief administrator, or his or her designee, may administer oaths and secure by its

subpoena both the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevantinformation. A subpoena shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas issued under theRules of the Illinois Supreme Court to compel appearance of a deponent, and subject to the samewitness and mileage fees fixed by law for such subpoenas.

A subpoena issued under this chapter shall identify the person to whom it is directed andthe documents or other items sought thereby, if any, and the date, time and place for theappearance of the witness and production of the documents or other items described in thesubpoena. In no event shall the date for examination or production be less than seven days afterservice of the subpoena.

2-57-060 Decisions; recommendations.(a) If the chief administrator issues a recommendation of discipline against one or

more members of the department, the superintendent must respond to such recommendationwithin 90 days. The response must include a description of any disciplinary action thesuperintendent has taken with respect to the member in question.

(b) If the superintendent did not take any disciplinary action, or takes a differentdisciplinary action than that recommended by the chief administrator, the superintendent mustdescribe the proposed different action and explain the reasons for the different action in thewritten response. The superintendent’s response shall include, but is not limited to, the followingreasons for taking a different action:

(i) an analysis of the employee’s work history, including any prior disciplinaryactions, any prior complaints filed against the employee, and/or any prior

v

-4-

complimentary history;(ii) the superintendent’s professional opinion with regard to the case; (iii) the existence of any lawsuits arising out of the performance of police duties to

which the employee has been a named party, and the outcome of such lawsuits,including those in which the employee has been exonerated; and

(iv) any evidentiary concerns with regard to the investigation.

This response must be submitted to the chief administrator within the 90-day decisionperiod.

(c) Within ten business days after the submission of a response letter which proposesless discipline than that recommended by the chief administrator, the superintendent and thechief administrator shall meet to discuss the reasons for the superintendent’s actions. If the chiefadministrator does not concur with regard to the superintendent’s reasons for the differingdisciplinary action, the chief administrator shall, within five business days, send thesuperintendent’s response, along with the chief administrator’s objections, to a separate panelconsisting of three persons who shall be designated by the police board from its membership.

The three-member panel shall, within ten business days of receipt, review thesuperintendent’s response and the chief administrator’s objections. Upon the request of thethree-member panel, the superintendent and the chief administrator may be required to presentadditional documentation or present oral arguments in support of their positions. If thesuperintendent’s response does not meet its burden of overcoming the chief administrator’srecommendation for discipline, in the opinion of the majority of the three-member panel, therecommendation shall be deemed to be accepted by the superintendent. Such members of thepanel shall then recuse themselves from any future involvement with such case by the full policeboard.

(d) No action of the superintendent which proposes to take less discipline than thatrecommended by the chief administrator shall be valid until the provisions of subsection (c) ofthis section are followed.

(e) If the superintendent fails to respond to the recommendation within the 90-daydecision period, such recommendation shall be deemed to be accepted by the superintendent.

(f) Nothing in this section shall limit the superintendent’s ability to impose anyadditional discipline than that recommended by the chief administrator.

2-57-070 Investigations not concluded within six months.If the chief administrator does not conclude an investigation within six months after its

initiation, the chief administrator shall notify the mayor’s office, the city council committee onpolice and fire, the complainant, and the employee named in the complaint or his or her counselof the general nature of the complaint or information giving rise to the investigation and thereasons for failure to complete the investigation within six months.

2-57-080 Cooperation in investigations.It shall be a condition of employment for every officer, employee, department, and agency

vi

-5-

of the city to cooperate with the chief administrator in any investigation or hearing undertakenpursuant to this chapter. Any employee or appointed officer of the city who violates anyprovision of this section shall be subject to discharge (or such other discipline as may bespecified in an applicable collective bargaining agreement) in addition to any other penaltyprovided in this chapter.

2-57-090 Retaliation prohibited--Penalty.No person shall retaliate against, punish or penalize any other person for complaining to,

cooperating with or assisting the chief administrator in the performance of his or her office. Anyperson who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to a fine of not less than$5,000.00 and not more than $10,000.00 for each violation.

2-57-100 Final Summary Reports - Open to public inspection.All final summary reports of the independent police review authority shall be open to

public inspection, except to the extent that information contained therein is exempted fromdisclosure by the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, collective bargaining agreement, or anyother applicable law.

2-57-110 Quarterly reports to legislative and executive branches.No later than the fifteenth day of January, April, July and October of each year, the chief

administrator shall file with the mayor’s office, the city council committee on police and fire, theoffice of the city clerk, and the legislative reference bureau a report accurate as of the last day ofthe preceding month, indicating: (1) the number of investigations initiated since the date of thelast report; (2) the number of investigations concluded since the last report; (3) the number ofinvestigations pending as of the reporting date; (4) the number of complaints not sustained sincethe last report; (5) the number of complaints sustained since the last report; (6) the number ofcomplaints filed in each district since the last report; (7) without identifying any individual, thenumber of complaints filed against each police officer in each district since the last report; and(8) the number of complaints referred to other agencies and the identity of such other agencies. Such reports shall be open for public inspection and shall be posted on the city’s website.

2-57-120 Chief Administrator--Conditions for removal from office.Prior to serving a complete term, the chief administrator may be removed only for cause

and in accordance with the provisions of this section. The mayor shall give written notice (a) tothe city council of his intent to remove the chief administrator; and (b) to the chief administratorof the cause of his intended removal. Within ten days after receipt of the notice, the chiefadministrator may file with the city council a request for hearing on the cause for removal. If nosuch request is made within ten days, the chief administrator shall be deemed to have resignedhis or her office as of the tenth day after receipt of the notice of intended removal. If such arequest is made, the city council shall convene a hearing on the cause for removal of the chiefadministrator, at which the chief administrator may appear, be represented by counsel and beheard. The hearing shall be convened within ten days after receipt of the request therefor andconclude within 14 days thereafter. The mayor's notice of intended removal shall constitute the

vii

-6-

charge against the chief administrator. Removal of the chief administrator for cause after thehearing shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the city council.

2-57-130 Obstructing or interfering with investigations -Penalty.No person shall wilfully refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by the chief

administrator, or otherwise knowingly interfere with or obstruct an investigation authorized bythis chapter and conducted by an announced investigator of the independent police reviewauthority. Any person who wilfully violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to afine of not less than $1,000.00 and not more than $5,000.00 for each such offense, orimprisonment for a period of not less than 30 days and not more than six months, or both a fineand imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinctoffense. Actions seeking the imposition of a fine only shall be filed as quasi-criminal actionssubject to the provisions of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, as amended. Actions seekingincarceration, or incarceration and a fine, shall be filed and prosecuted as misdemeanor actionsunder the procedure set forth in Section 1-2-1.1 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended.

2-57-140 Violation--Penalty--Discharge or other discipline.Any employee or appointed officer of the city who violates any provision of this chapter

shall be subject to discharge (or such other discipline as may be specified in an applicablecollective bargaining agreement) in addition to any other penalty provided in this chapter.

2-57-150 Rules and regulations.The chief administrator is authorized to adopt such rules, regulations and procedures as

he or she may deem expedient for the proper administration and enforcement of the provisions ofthis chapter.

2-57-160 Public policy.The public policy of this chapter is to make certain that complaints concerning police

misconduct and abuse are resolved fairly and timely. All collective bargaining agreements mustbe in accord with this policy.

APPEnDIx B

CPD Use of Force

ix

APPEnDIx C

Abstract of Sustained Cases

xlv

xlvi

Abstract of Sustained Cases

Sept. 2007

Log No. / C.R. No. 314993On 19 August 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 16th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly pushed, struck, and directed profanities at a minor complainant. Prior to the creation of IPRA, an agreement was reached through mediation to “susTAIn” the allegations of the physical and verbal abuse. The accused member admitted the misconduct and agreed to accept discipline consisting of a three (3) day suspension.

Nov. 2007

Log No. / C.R. No. 1005219On 26 April 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards) alleging that a physical and verbal altercation occurred in the 21st District between a Chicago Police Department crossing guard and a private citizen. Because the allegations were verified by statements of the accused and witnesses to the incident, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations of violations committed by the accused: 1.) that the accused waved her hand in the face of the complainant, 2.) that the accused poked the complainant in the head with her finger, and 3.) that the accused bumped against the person of the complainant. IPRA recommended a five (5) day suspension for the accused member.

Log No. / C.R. No. 314442On July 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 15th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly slammed the complainant against a squad car, handcuffed the complainant without justification, and used profane language and gestures directed against said complainant. Based on corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations that the accused slammed the complainant against the squad car, unjustifiably handcuffed, and directed profane language and gestures against said complainant. Further, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” two separate allegations against the accused and the accused member’s partner in that they failed to complete a field contact card for the contact with the complainant, which violated Rule 6, “Disobedience of an order or directive whether written or oral.” IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for the accused member, and a two (2) day suspension for the partner of the accused member.

Log No. / C.R. No. 313295On 01 June 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 8th District, in which a Chicago Police Department detective allegedly physically abused, improperly handcuffed, detained, searched the vehicle of a complainant removing personal items and failed to return them to said complainant, and failed to complete a field contact card recording contact made with the complainant. A second Chicago Police Department detective involved in this incident allegedly held and punched the complainant, and failed to complete a field contact card to record the contact made with the complainant. A third Chicago Police Department detective involved in this incident allegedly failed to complete a field contact card. Based on physical evidence and corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the first accused member: that the accused physically abused the complainant; improperly handcuffed

APPE

NDI

CES

APPE

NDI

CES

xlviithe complainant and refused to adjust the handcuffs; detained and released the complainant without authorization; searched complainant’s vehicle, removed personal effects and failed to return them to the complainant; failed to complete a field contact card to record contact with said complainant; provided a false statement; and engaged in conduct bringing discredit or disrepute to the Department. IPRA further recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for the first accused member. Also, based on the physical evidence and corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the second accused member: that the accused failed to complete a field contact card to record the contact with the complainant; physically mistreated the complainant; provided a false report; and engaged in conduct bringing discredit and disrepute to the Department. Further, IPRA recommended a twenty-five (25) day suspension for the second accused member. Lastly, based on said evidence, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the third accused member: that the accused failed to complete a field contact card to record the contact with the complainant and provided a false report. IPRA recommended a fifteen (15) day suspension for the third accused member.

Log No. / C.R. 1008489On 16 August 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 17th District, in which a Chicago Police Department detective allegedly struck the head of the complainant causing it to hit a Plexiglas partition, and verbally abused the complainant. Prior to the creation of IPRA, an agreement was reached through mediation to “susTAIn” the allegations. The accused admitted the misconduct and agreed to accept discipline consisting of a one (1) day suspension.

Dec. 2007

Log No. / C.R. 311600On 01 March 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 4th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly physically abused and mistreated his children. Based on physical evidence, corroborating witness statements, Department of Children and Family Services findings, and internal Department reports, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation of physical abuse and providing a false report against the accused member. Further IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” the allegation that the accused and his spouse struck his children with a broom handle, because the evidence was inconclusive as to which, if any, parent struck the children. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for the accused member.

Jan. 2008

Log No. / C.R. No. 309916On 29 november 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards) regarding an incident that occurred in the 11th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer working a security position allegedly physically abused, grabbed, and threatened the first complainant; said accused member allegedly pushed a second complainant; and failed to complete a Tactical Response Report. Based on corroborating witness statements and the accused member’s admissions, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations: that the accused pushed the first complainant’s head against a wall; threatened bodily harm against said complainant; grabbed and pushed the first complainant in an empty classroom; pushed said complainant against a large metal file cabinet; punched the head of the complainant causing it to strike a bathroom door; pushed the second complainant; failed to complete a Tactical Response Report; and engaged in conduct bringing discredit and disrepute to the Department. IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for the accused member.

xlviiiLog No. / C.R. No. 310747

On 20 January, 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 9th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly used profanity in the presence of students and grabbed the wrist of a complainant. Based on corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” both allegations against the accused member. IPRA recommended a reprimand for accused.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1001584On 27 november 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 12th District, in which a Chicago Police Department probationary police officer allegedly inadvertently discharged his weapon. Because the allegation was corroborated by statements from the accused and witnesses to the incident, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation and recommended a penalty of a five (5) day suspension for the accused member.

Log No. / C.R. No. 312805On 07 May 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred within the boundaries of the 12th and 14th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly entered the garage of a fellow department member without justification, damaged the vehicle of said member, drove recklessly and disobeyed traffic lights, resulting in an accident for which the accused failed to complete police reports. Based on video recordings and corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the accused: that he entered the garage of the complainant without justification; damaged complainant’s vehicle; drove recklessly and disobeyed traffic lights; that the accused was involved in a traffic accident, for which he did not complete a police report; that the accused member provided a false report; and that the accused engaged in conduct bringing discredit or disrepute to the Department. Further, based on the material evidence that the accused had an accident report completed, IPRA recommended that the allegation that the accused was involved in an accident and failed to complete a report be “unFOunDED.” IPRA recommended a sixty (60) day suspension for the accused member.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1003995On 12 March 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 25th District, in which a Chicago Police Department detention aide was allegedly involved in a physical altercation with and made disparaging remarks about a fellow department member. Because witness statements corroborated the allegations, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations and to impose a ten (10) day suspension against the accused member. The complainant, a Chicago Police Department member as well, was also alleged to have engaged in a physical altercation with the accused. Witness statements confirmed that the complainant acted in self-defense, and IPRA recommended to “EXOnERATE” the complainant as to this allegation.

Feb. 2008

Log No. / C.R. No. 307739 On 15 August 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 10th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly kicked a complainant about

APPE

NDI

CES

xlixthe face and directed racial slurs against said complainant. Further, two other accused police officers involved in the incident were alleged to have witnessed the misconduct and failed to report it. Based on the corroborating witness statements and the assessment of a senior officer, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the first accused officer physically mistreated the complainant. Further, because there were no corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended that the allegation of the racial slur directed to the complainant be “unFOunDED.” Also, based on the corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations that the other two accused members witnessed and failed to report the misconduct of the first accused. IPRA recommended a fifteen (15) day suspension be imposed on the first accused member, and that a five (5) day suspension be imposed on the second and third accused members.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1003198On 26 February 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards) against a Chicago Police Department officer alleging that he sent threatening and derogatory communications to a private citizen living outside of the municipal jurisdiction. Because of material evidence produced by the complainant and an admission of the misconduct by the accused, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the accused sent threatening and derogatory communications. IPRA recommended a reprimand of the accused officer.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1005774On 16 May 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 14th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly kicked and physically mistreated a detainee. Because videotape evidence and witness statements corroborated the allegations, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against the accused. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for the accused officer. The partner of the accused failed to report the misconduct, and IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” three counts of violating Rule 6, “Disobedience of an order/directive whether written or oral” against the partner. IPRA recommended a fifteen (15) day suspension for the partner.

Log No. / C.R. No. 315420On 11 September 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 3rd District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly inadvertently discharged a weapon. Based on internal reports, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the accused accidentally discharged a weapon, as he attempted to unload it. Further, IPRA recommended that the violation be noted in the accused member’s file.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1001562On 25 november 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 4th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer struck the head and chest of the complainant and was intoxicated while off-duty. Because the complainant dropped the complaint and refused to cooperate with the IPRA investigation, IPRA recommended that the allegation that the accused allegedly struck the complainant about the head and chest, be “unFOunDED.” The allegation of intoxication was confirmed by breathalyzer results taken at the scene of the incident by responding Chicago Police officers. IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the accused was intoxicated and recommended a thirty (30) day suspension.

l

Mar. 2008

Log No. / C.R. No. 1003566On 21 February 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 25th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly physically and verbally assaulted several private citizens. Based on videotape evidence and corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” multiple allegations of physical and verbal abuse, misconduct, intoxication, violation of state laws, and attempting to interfere with the criminal and IPRA investigations. IPRA recommended separation from the Department.

Log No. / C.R. No. 306910On 12 July 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 17th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly struck an individual about the head, grabbed and pushed the individual, threatened bodily harm and threatened to plant false evidence against said individual. It was further alleged that the accused officer attempted to obtain and destroy incriminating evidence against him; was charged with criminal charges of battery, official misconduct and attempt to obstruct justice; and pled guilty to the charge of battery. The second accused Chicago Police Department officer allegedly witnessed the misconduct and failed to report it. Based on videotape evidence, admissions by the first accused member, and witness testimony, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against said accused: that the accused beat the individual about the head; grabbed the individual by the neck; physically mistreated the individual; that the accused attempted to obtain and destroy videotape footage; that the accused was charged with several criminal violations; and that the accused pled guilty to misdemeanor battery and was subsequently found guilty. Because the accused member denied the allegation, and there were no corroborating witness statements nor material evidence to support the allegation that the first accused member threatened bodily harm and to plant contraband on the individual, IPRA recommended to find these allegations as “nOT susTAInED.” Based on the evidence presented, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against the second accused member that he witnessed the misconduct and failed to report it. Further IPRA recommended separation from the department for the first accused member, and that a sixty (60) day suspension be imposed on the second accused member.

Log No. / C.R. No. 312939On 13 May 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 22nd District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer was alleged to have harassed, verbally abused, threatened death against, and challenged a fellow department member to a physical altercation, and on a separate occasion to have removed personal property from the fellow member’s personal vehicle. It is further alleged that the accused officer verbally abused and threatened bodily harm against a private citizen. Based on audio footage, corroborating witness statements, and admissions by the accused member, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the accused officer: that he harassed, verbally abused, and threatened death against a fellow officer, as well as attempted to provoke said officer into a physical altercation, and threatened bodily harm against a private citizen. The accused member denied the allegation that he entered the vehicle of a fellow department member and removed personal effects, and because there were no witness statements nor material evidence to support it, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” this allegation. IPRA recommended a seven (7) day suspension for the accused member.

li

Apr. 2008

Log No. / C.R. No. 1009073On 7 September 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred in the 4th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly threatened and physically mistreated a relative. Because internal CPD reports and admissions made by the accused confirmed the events as alleged regarding the physical mistreatment, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations of the physical mistreatment. Because there were no corroborating witness statements to support the allegation that the accused made threatening remarks, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” this allegation. IPRA recommended a three (3) day suspension for the accused member.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1009368On 17 September 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred in the 16th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly sent verbally abusive and threatening communications to, and impersonated a fellow department member. Because there were no corroborating witness statements nor physical evidence to support the allegation that the accused impersonated a fellow department member, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” this allegation. IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations of abusive and threatening communications based on recordings of these transmissions and on admissions made by the accused. IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” an allegation that the accused gave a false report to IPRA investigators, and to impose a fifteen (15) day suspension as penalty for the misconduct.

Log No. / C.R. 311248On 16 February 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 8th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer was alleged to have grabbed an individual around the neck and placed said individual in a chokehold, pressed the barrel of his gun against the individual’s head, directed profanity at said individual, threatened death, pushed the individual’s head into a gated window, held the individual without probable cause, failed to complete a field contact card to record contact with the individual, and directed profanity at a private citizen. A second and third accused officer were alleged to have witnessed the misconduct and failed to report it. Based on corroborating witness statements, physical evidence, and admissions made by the accused, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the first accused member: that the accused grabbed the individual around the neck, put a gun to the individual’s head, threatened death against the individual, directed profanity to the individual and a private citizen, pushed the individual, failed to complete a field contact card, detained the individual without probable cause, and that the accused provided a false report. Further, because there were no corroborating witness statements nor material evidence to support the allegations against the second and third accused members, that they witnessed the misconduct and failed to report it, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” these allegations. IPRA recommended separation from the department for the first accused member.

Log No. / C.R. 1004248On 21 March 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 25th District, in which four (4) Chicago Police Officers responding to the scene of a battery, allegedly failed to report the misconduct of a fellow department member. Based on video footage and on corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” multiple allegations that the accused members failed to report the misconduct of a fellow department member, were inattentive to duty, disobeyed a written/oral direct order, and made a false report. IPRA recommended a sixty (60) day suspension for each of these accused members. As to the other two (2) accused members,

liiIPRA recommended that the allegations that they failed to report the misconduct of a fellow department member, were inattentive to duty, disobeyed a written/oral direct order, and made a false report be “unFOunDED” because evidence indicated that the other two (2) accused members did not receive information relating to the misconduct of the fellow department member.

Log No. / C.R. 284070On 11 September 2002, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred outside of Chicago jurisdiction, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer was alleged to have directed profanities at and struck a law enforcement officer, resisted on-duty law enforcement officers and failed to identify himself as a Chicago Police Department officer. Based on videotape footage of the incident, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against the accused that he resisted on-duty law enforcement officers, was arrested and charged with battery, and that the accused failed to properly secure his firearm. Also based on this videotape footage, IPRA recommended that the allegations that the accused member struck a law enforcement officer and that the accused failed to identify himself as a Chicago Police Department officer, be “unFOunDED.” Lastly, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” the allegation against the accused that he directed profanities at a law enforcement officer, because there were no corroborating witness statements. IPRA recommended a five (5) day suspension for the accused member.

Log No. / C.R. 304935On 19 April 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 23rd District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer was alleged to have unnecessarily displayed his firearm, was intoxicated, and was arrested and found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. Based on corroborating witness statements and internal reports, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against the accused that he displayed his firearm without cause, was intoxicated, was arrested and found guilty on two counts of aggravated assault. IPRA recommended separation for the accused member; however said member retired from the Department during the course of IPRA’s investigation.

Log No. / C.R. 304344On 21 March 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 23rd District, in which several Chicago Police Department officers allegedly failed to obtain medical attention for an individual within a timely manner after observing the individual place an unknown object in his mouth and complain of an inability to breathe, failed to conduct themselves in a professional manner, and observed the misconduct of those officers principal to this incident and failed to report it. It is further alleged that one of the accused officers struck the individual in the face. Based on internal reports and witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against three (3) principally involved officers that they failed to obtain medical attention for the individual in a timely manner after observing the individual place an unidentified object into his mouth and complained of difficulty breathing, and that the accused officers failed to conduct themselves in a professional manner by failing to provide said attention. In addition, IPRA recommended that an allegation against a fourth accused officer that he allegedly failed to obtain immediate medical attention for a detainee, be “unFOunDED” because witness statements established that he did not witness the individual put the object in his mouth and therefore was not aware of the need for medical attention, and also he said that he had, as a matter of course, offered medical attention and it was declined. For allegations against those officers alleged to have been witnesses to the mistreatment of the individual and to have failed to report any misconduct and failed to conduct themselves in a professional manner, IPRA recommend to “nOT susTAIn” these allegations because witness statements were inconsistent and could not establish their presence when any misconduct occurred. Further, IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for each of the three principally accused members.

APPE

NDI

CES

liiiLog No. / C.R. 1007211

On 3 July 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 20th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly attempted to exploit her Department position for personal gain, and physically mistreated and verbally abused a private citizen. Based on videotape footage and corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against the accused that she attempted to exploit her Department position for personal gain, pushed the individual, used profanity, and that accused engaged in conduct discrediting the Chicago Police Department. IPRA recommended separation from the Department.

May 2008

Log No. / C.R. 1004755On 9 April 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 10th District, in which a Chicago Police Department sergeant and police officer allegedly accidentally discharged a recovered weapon. IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations against the sergeant in that he discharged a recovered weapon, and violated Rule 10 “Inattention to Duty” and Rule 6 “Disobedience to a direct order, whether written or oral.” This recommendation was based on the accused sergeant’s admission that he accidentally discharged the weapon and upon an Illinois State Police Forensics Division finding that the recovered weapon functioned properly and could not misfire on its own. IPRA recommended that the accused sergeant receive a reprimand. Based upon the sergeant’s admission, IPRA recommended that the allegation of an inadvertent discharge against the accused police officer be “unFOunDED.”

Log No. / C.R. 315128On August 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 16th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly punched the body of a complainant, kicked, choked, verbally abused said complainant, threw beer cans at the complainant, unnecessarily displayed his weapon, attempted to prevent the complainant from calling 911, was intoxicated, and had unregistered weapons in his possession, and on a separate occasion punched the complainant. It is further alleged that the accused member kicked and verbally abused two fellow department members. Based on witness statements, physical evidence and a signed criminal complaint from the complainant, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the accused member: that he punched, kicked, choked, verbally abused and threw cans of beer at the complainant, attempted to prevent the complainant from contacting 911, displayed his weapon without justification, that the accused member kicked and verbally abused two fellow department members responding to calls for emergency assistance at the location of the incident, was in possession of unregistered firearms, was intoxicated and engaged in conduct bringing discredit and disrepute to the Department. Because there were no corroborating witness statements and material evidence to support the complainant’s allegation that the accused member physically abused her on a separate occasion, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” this allegation. Because the accused member admitted the misconduct and sought alcohol treatment on his own, IPRA recommended a sixty (60) day suspension for this accused member.

Log No. / C.R. 310387On 01 January 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 21st District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department civilian member allegedly threw several items within a public lounge, threw several items in the direction of an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer, damaged property at said lounge which resulted in a arrest for Criminal

livDamage to Property, verbally abused a Department officer, disrupted business of the lounge, and falsely identified herself as a Chicago Police Department officer. It is further alleged that the Chicago Police Department officer present at this incident allegedly provided a false report. Based on corroborating witness statements and physical evidence, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the accused civilian member: that she threw several items within a public lounge, that the accused member threw items in the direction of a Chicago Police Department officer, that the accused caused property damage to the interior of said establishment, which resulted in her arrest and being charged with Criminal Damage to Property, that the accused verbally abused a private citizen, and that the accused falsely identified herself as a Chicago Police Department officer. Further, IPRA recommended that the allegation that the accused disrupted the business of the lounge and caused a loss in revenue be “unFOunDED” as this allegation went beyond the scope of IPRA’s jurisdiction and needed to be addressed as a civil matter. Lastly, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation against the second accused member for providing a false report, because witness statements conflicted with the second accused’s statements to IPRA. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for the accused civilian member and a fifteen (15) day suspension for the accused officer.

Log No. / C.R. 306446On 24 April 2005, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 11th District, in which two Chicago Police Department detention aides are alleged to have failed to have screened an individual for suitability for confinement, failed to follow guidelines for arrestee screening, failed to summon medical attention for the individual, failed to make fifteen (15) minute checks, and made a false entry in the inspection log. It is further alleged that a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly failed to screen an individual for suitability for confinement, failed to follow guidelines for arrestee screening, failed to summon medical attention for the individual, failed to make fifteen (15) minute checks, made a false entry in the inspection log, and left his duty assignment without proper relief or authorization. Finally, it is alleged that a Chicago Police Department sergeant failed to provide medical care to an individual; and that several Chicago Police Department officers physically mistreated and failed to provide medical care for said individual. Based on internal reports and admissions by the principal accused officer, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” allegations that the accused officer failed to screen the individual for suitability of confinement and that the accused officer failed to follow arrestee screening guidelines. Further, IPRA recommended to find the allegations that the accused officer failed to summon an ambulance for an individual, failed to make fifteen (15) minute checks on the detained individual, made a false entry in the inspection log, and that the accused left his duty assignment without proper relief or authorization, as “unFOunDED,” because the accused officer was given verbal authorization from a commanding officer to leave his tour of duty early, and the alleged incident occurred after the accused officer had already left his tour of duty. Further, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the first accused detention aide, principal to the incident, failed to make fifteen (15) minute checks on the detained individual, made a false entry in the inspection log, and made a false report, because his statements conflicted with internal reports and material evidence. The remaining allegations were recommended to be “unFOunDED,” because corroborating witness statements indicated that the accused detention aide followed orders of the commanding officer to place the detainee in a cell, that the detention aide advised the commanding officer of the detainee’s physical injuries, and that upon discovering the detainee’s condition, he notified the commanding officer and requested that an ambulance be called. The allegations against the second accused detention aide were deemed as “unFOunDED,” because it was confirmed that these were not within the purview of his duty assignment on the day of the incident. The allegations against the remaining accused officers that they physically mistreated the detainee and failed to summon medical attention, were deemed as “unFOunDED” because witness statements and internal reports corroborated that the accused officers were not made aware of any physical injuries suffered by the detainee and had minimal

lvcontact with the detainee when he was transported to the 11th District lock-up. Finally, the allegation against the accused sergeant that he allegedly failed to summon an ambulance for the detained individual, was “susTAInED” as witness statements supported this allegation. PRA recommended a fifteen (15) day suspension for the first accused detention aide, a sixteen (16) day suspension for the accused sergeant, and a fifteen (15) day suspension for the accused police officer.

Log No. / C.R. No. 310490On 06 January 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 12th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer was alleged to have engaged in an unjustified physical and verbal altercation with two complainants and to have been intoxicated while off-duty. Based on corroborating witness statements and 911 audio recordings, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the accused member: that the accused member was intoxicated while off-duty, engaged in unjustified physical and verbal altercations with two complainants, engaged in conduct bringing discredit or disrepute to the Department, and provided a false report. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for the accused officer.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1012744On 19 December 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred in the 10th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly harassed and verbally abused a fellow department member. Based on internal reports and corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegations that the accused made harassing phone calls to and used derogatory language against a fellow department member, and that the misconduct brought discredit to the Department. IPRA recommended that the accused receive a reprimand.

Jun. 2008

Log No. / C.R. No. 1005099On 22 April 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 13th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly failed to secure her firearm during a domestic dispute. Based on corroborating witness statements, which contradicted with the accused’s account of the events, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the accused disobeyed a direct written/oral order because she failed to secure her weapon. IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for the accused officer.

Log No. / C.R. No. 314146On 10 July 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 22nd District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly pointed his weapon at three individuals, failed to identify himself as a police officer, verbally abused one of the individuals, failed to maintain control of his firearm, and was subsequently disarmed. Based on corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the following allegations against the accused member: that the accused pointed his weapon at three individuals, that he failed to identify himself as a Chicago Police Department officer, verbally abused one of the individuals, and failed to maintain control of his weapon and was subsequently disarmed. IPRA recommended a forty-five (45) day suspension for the accused officer.

lviLog No. / C.R. No. 315271

On 02 September 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 8th District, in which three Chicago Police Department officers allegedly handled physical evidence before it was processed by a forensic investigator, failed to wear rubber gloves before touching physical evidence, and failed to immediately notify a supervisor of their handling of the evidence. Based on admissions made by all three accused members, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” all of the allegations made against each accused. IPRA recommended that the first accused officer receive a five (5) day suspension, the second accused officer receive a three (3) day suspension, and that the third accused officer, receive a two (2) day suspension.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1005455On 4 May 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 4th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly failed to secure her weapon, made contact with the person of a private citizen with the weapon, and discharged the weapon directly in the face of the citizen. Based on witness statements, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the officer failed to secure her weapon resulting in an unintentional discharge. IPRA recommended the allegations that the accused pointed her weapon in the face of the individual, made contact with the individual’s person, and fired a single shot directly in front of the individual’s face, be “unFOunDED,” because witness statements corroborated the officer’s denial and undermined the credibility of the complainant. IPRA recommended a five (5) day suspension for the accused officer.

Jul. 2008

Log No. / C.R. No. 1013939On 5 February 2008, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred in the 6th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly accidentally discharged her weapon. Based on physical evidence and a finding from the Illinois State Police Forensic Sciences Division that the weapon was functioning properly and could not have misfired on its own, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the accused inadvertently discharged her weapon. IPRA recommended a two (2) day suspension for the accused officer.

Log No. / C.R. No. 1001961On 13 December 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 4th District, in which an off-duty Chicago Police Department officer allegedly engaged in an unjustified physical altercation with a fellow department member and was intoxicated. Based on physical evidence and admissions made by the accused officer, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” the allegation that the accused physically mistreated the complainant, and destroyed personal property of the complainant. IPRA recommended a one (1) day suspension for the accused. Due to insufficient evidence, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” the allegation that the accused was intoxicated.

lviiLog No. / C.R. No. 311536

On 04 March 2006, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA, formerly known as the Office of Professional Standards), regarding an incident that occurred in the 15th District, in which a Chicago Police Department officer allegedly grabbed a complainant by the neck and choked him, threw the complainant on the hood of a car and slammed the complainant’s head against the hood, grabbed and pulled out the complainant’s hair, threatened to plant contraband on the complainant, and verbally abused the complainant by directing profanity and derogatory remarks toward the complainant. It was further alleged that a Chicago Police Department sergeant failed to initiate a complaint register investigation on behalf of the complainant. Because there were no corroborating witness statements, IPRA recommended to “nOT susTAIn” the allegations of physical and verbal abuse and physical mistreatment. Based on 911 records that supported the allegation against the accused sergeant that he failed to initiate a complaint register investigation against the accused officer, IPRA recommended to “susTAIn” that allegation. IPRA recommended that the accused sergeant receive a reprimand.

Independent Police Review Authority 10 West 35th Street Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60616

(312) 745-3594 Complaint Line (312) 745-3609 General (312) 745-3591 FAX (312) 745-3593 TTY

www.iprachicago.org

independent police review authority annual report 2007 - 2008 · ipra investigates all cases in...

Documents